Hey Tony, 

> On Sep 18, 2026, at 4:42 AM, Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> here's an interesting observation. the capability does not distinguish L1/L2 
> and on P2P we have a single IIH so it's implicitly "capability is for both 
> levels" and that presents implications for e.g. ASH where on broadcast it 
> will separate per level but on P2P both levels are implied. 
> 
> not sure we should do anything about it but just factual observation 

Wouldn't the capability scoping just follow the IS-IS adjaceny, L1, L2, of 
L1/L2? 

Thanks,
Acee


> 
> -- tony 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2026 at 4:56 PM Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> wrote:
> Plus one obviously here and it was Les’ suggestion to pull that out from the 
> ash  draft which I fully support. this will prove useful for lots of other 
> stuff I can imagine
> 
> I’m working currently on something else, but we’ll rewrite the ash draft to 
> point to that one
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 3 Sep 2026, at 20:31, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>  Acee -
>>  The immediate driver for this draft comes from  
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-prz-lsr-ash-packets/ which needs to 
>> signal support for the new PDUs.
>> That draft currently proposes a mechanism specific to that use case.
>> But I had commented - and Tony P agreed - that it would be more forward 
>> looking to define something more generic - which is what this draft does.
>>  I absolutely do NOT want to include the ash-packet use case in this draft 
>> as that would create a circular dependency between the two drafts.
>> I would hope you see the wisdom in that.
>>  I also have another use case in mind - but that draft has yet to be written.
>>  But if you are worried that we are defining something that will never get 
>> used - relax - not the case. 😊
>>     Les
>>    >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>
>> >Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:17 AM
>> >To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
>> >Cc: lsr <[email protected]>
>> >Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-lsr-hello-
>> >capability-00.txt
>> > > > >> On Sep 3, 2026, at 2:12 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
>> > > > >> <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> Acee -
>> >> >> Nothing is being hidden. There are no features defined as of yet.
>> >> >> That said, in the context of other drafts - some existing - some yet 
>> >> >> to be
>> >published - use cases will be defined.
>> >> >> This draft is intentionally just the "plumbing".
>> > >And in that sense, this is the "pipe to nowhere"... I wouldn't think we'd 
>> > >adopt a
>> >draft without at least one compelling use case.
>> > >Acee
>> > > > >> >>    Les
>> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:05 AM
>> >>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
>> >>> Cc: lsr <[email protected]>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-lsr-hello-
>> >>> capability-00.txt
>> >>> >>> Speaking as WG member:
>> >>> >>>> On Sep 3, 2026, at 10:33 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>> Folks -
>> >>>> >>>> Tony P and I have posted a new document defining a new TLV to be
>> >included
>> >>> in hellos. The new TLV  supports advertisement of optional features 
>> >>> useful in
>> >>> establishing/maintaining adjacencies.
>> >>> >>> It seems the draft should include these useful optional features 
>> >>> >>> that need to
>> >>> discovered prior to establishing an adjacency.
>> >>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Acee
>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Comments welcomed.
>> >>>> >>>>  Les
>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 7:30 AM
>> >>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Tony Przygienda
>> >>> <[email protected]>
>> >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for 
>> >>>> draft-ginsberg-lsr-hello-capability-
>> >00.txt
>> >>>> >>>> A new version of Internet-Draft 
>> >>>> >>>> draft-ginsberg-lsr-hello-capability-00.txt
>> >has
>> >>>> been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the
>> >>>> IETF repository.
>> >>>> >>>> Name:     draft-ginsberg-lsr-hello-capability
>> >>>> Revision: 00
>> >>>> Title:    IS-IS Hello Capability
>> >>>> Date:     2026-09-03
>> >>>> Group:    Individual Submission
>> >>>> Pages:    6
>> >>>> URL:      
>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ginsberg-lsr-hello-capability-
>> >>> 00.txt
>> >>>> Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-lsr-hello-
>> >capability/
>> >>>> HTMLized: 
>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-lsr-hello-
>> >>> capability
>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Abstract:
>> >>>> >>>>  Advertisement of capabilities in Hellos is useful to allow 
>> >>>> >>>> support of
>> >>>>  optional features in establishing and maintaining adjacencies.  This
>> >>>>  document defines a new TLV to be sent in hellos to advertise such
>> >>>>  capabilities.
>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The IETF Secretariat
>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> >>   _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to